[Oliver Peters]Wonder if they are waiting for 20Gb/s Tbolt in 2014 from Intel?

If you ask me, everyone who thinks Apple is waiting on some sort of new technology before they upgrade the Mac Pro is only kidding themselves. 20 Gigabit Thunderbolt sounds amazing, but It's been, what- three and a half years now or something? That's AT LEAST two full refresh cycles! Surely they could throw SOMETHING appealing together in the meantime...

______________________________________________
"Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."

[Greg Andonian]"If you ask me, everyone who thinks Apple is waiting on some sort of new technology before they upgrade the Mac Pro is only kidding themselves. 20 Gigabit Thunderbolt sounds amazing, but It's been, what- three and a half years now or something? That's AT LEAST two full refresh cycles! Surely they could throw SOMETHING appealing together in the meantime..."

I think this sort of logic misses quite how, well, crazy Apple is in some respects. With no apparent solution to the Xeon/Thunderbolt problem, most companies in Apple's position would indeed have just gone on updating 'traditional' Mac Pros. But Apple isn't most companies. Holding a product off the market for a couple of extra years because it doesn't match up with your new vision of exactly what that product should be is not something that can be dismissed in Apple's case.

If they were going to cancel the Mac Pro, they'd have said so. That's what they did with the Xserve. They haven't said so here (in fact, Cook has said the opposite), so they're up to something in this market. When it will show up, what it might be, and whether everyone will be happy with it, it's hard to say. But they're absolutely up to something.

[Chris Kenny]"If they were going to cancel the Mac Pro, they'd have said so. That's what they did with the Xserve. They haven't said so here (in fact, Cook has said the opposite), so they're up to something in this market. When it will show up, what it might be, and whether everyone will be happy with it, it's hard to say. But they're absolutely up to something."

IMO there's no room for MacPros, iMacs and Macminis anymore in Apple's vision. They're about to be consolidated into one product. Plus a 4K LED. And by the time their laptops get "fast enough", they will kill it too.

Yes and we can say COMPUTER specifically. Apple's Computers are selling much better then most of the rest of the PC market even though the entire market is in decline. The results though, is that Apple's share of the market is actually growing... and unlike the "low margin" PCs, Macs are actually very profitable to Apple.

[Marcus Moore]" So being the most profitable computer company in the world is a business they're just going to walk away from?"

No, that's why they have those MacBookPros and MacBookAirs, plus the new one? How is that "walking away from computer business"? They are offering what actually is selling. And this new machine would be placed where those iMacs, Macminis and MacPross were. Add a 4K display and there you have it! Far fetched? Also, one could argue if the iOS ecosystem couldn't be characterized as "computer business" as well?

Although I'd note that Apple has been expanding, not consolidating.
iPad expanded to include iPad Mini.
iPhone now includes 4, 4S, 5 and rumor of a bifurcation into a less expensive design.
MacBookPro expands to include MBP and Retina MBP.

I know Apple has preached simplicity of choice but it really looks like they're heading the other way.

[Craig Seeman]" Although I'd note that Apple has been expanding, not consolidating."

Well, that depends on how you look at it. Pro Apps anyone? And do you REALLY see MacMinis, MacPros and iMacs as close to Apple's heart as those products you just cited? Because that desktop line is not! That's why they'll be combined into one. Simplicity along with small footprint is the key here. Time will tell.

[Christian Schumacher]"And do you REALLY see MacMinis, MacPros and iMacs as close to Apple's heart as those products you just cited?"

Yes because the smartphone and tablet market is volatile. Apple diversifies and they will likely diversify further.

In fact I was a bit surprised that Apple now has 13" MacBook Air, 13" MacBookPro, 13" MacBookPro Retina. This is certainly not consolidation.

On desktop MacMini (headless and weak GPU), iMac (Monitor and GPU range), MacPro (we'll find out) all serve different markets. There's no one computer fits all in that market. And if they go to an even higher end monitor, as you imply, that would add to the stratification. The price of a MacMini vs an iMac with 4K or Retina monitor will be huge. That stratification is part of the reason for the diversity in the MacBook line and THREE 13" models.

Though I would say the expanded mobile offerings are temporary in the near term. As soon as Apple can bring the cost of the rMBPs in line with the legacy offerings- count on the non Retina machines to go away.

[Marcus Moore]"Though I would say the expanded mobile offerings are temporary in the near term. As soon as Apple can bring the cost of the rMBPs in line with the legacy offerings- count on the non Retina machines to go away.

Then we'll be back to MacBook Air and MacBookPros."

And I agree with you on that. But what it tells me is that Apple is very much paying attention to market/pricing conditions in their offerings. They'll consolidate when the market prices allow for it.
Just as one might consider consolidation when Retina prices drop, some might consider what might happen when Thunderbolt reaches 100Gbits and GPUs can be supported in that environment... but until then...

We are seeing the beginnings of price drops in Retina models (so it seems) but we might be a year or so away from the laptop consolidation.

[Craig Seeman]" Yes because the smartphone and tablet market is volatile. Apple diversifies and they will likely diversify further."

Sorry, that's just plain wrong! Their diversification wars will be fought in the consumer space, not content provider space. (despite the "macpro"future update) They will be striving for consumer orientated products (and services!) and there you'll find your expansion. That is where most "diversification" has been gained until now and that is where it will come from in the future as well. iCloud, iTunes, iWatch, iTV, home and personal appliances and so on...

[Craig Seeman]"In fact I was a bit surprised that Apple now has 13" MacBook Air, 13" MacBookPro, 13" MacBookPro Retina. This is certainly not consolidation."

Now you're pushing it. Do you really think they won't kill the non-retina one? The only reason they keep them is that retina is still a novelty.

Right. One thing apple desktops have in common though is that they don't sell as well as theirs laptoppies counterparts, and I'm willing to bet many people are very aware of that, including you. Oh, c'mon, MacPro and Macmini should be a freaking disaster, compared to their mobiles of course. And then there's the iMac, sure it still has some of its original mojo, and it should perform well if they manage to keep it. But that's where the 4K panel comes in, should Apple eventually release one, that thing would kill the need for the iMac altogether, bringing this new technology to the entire line. In this scenario several options could still be ordered as BTOs and different sizes, etc.

I think one of the biggest problems when the new MacPro is released will the sudden drop in traffic on the COW. Although the speculation will probably be replaced by moaning about the new MacPro's specs and how much faster and cheaper the equivalent PC is.

[Christian Schumacher]"Sorry, that's just plain wrong! Their diversification wars will be fought in the consumer space, not content provider space. (despite the "macpro"future update) They will be striving for consumer orientated products (and services!) and there you'll find your expansion."

Consumer vs professional? I don't think Apple sees it that way in their business models. I can certainly see a fair amount of very professional use of the iPhone and iPad. I'd think RIM didn't consider their onetime penetration into the business markets as "consumer."

I really think Apple makes "product" and users use. I think they look at markets by needs, not an artificial divide between "consumer vs professional" or even "consumer vs provider."

Might you want to look at the number of content creator apps or business professional apps developed iPhone and iPad?

Right NOW Apple is aware of the need for differentiation and right NOW that's what they're doing across both iOS and OSX products. That it's happening on BOTH product lines might really indicate where Apple is NOW in understanding CURRENT market conditions.

[Christian Schumacher]"One thing apple desktops have in common though is that they don't sell as well as theirs laptoppies counterparts,"

But you're assuming that that would be how they're comparing things as they develop. Perhaps they're looking at how their desktops are comparing against similarly price (key is pricing) Windows desktops. While I don't have the numbers readily available I've seen market research that indicate that Apple's "all in one" (iMac) leads in the over $1000 all in one category. That may be far more important to a company that thrives by expanding diversity. Using your reasoning Apple would only make iPhones since even iPads don't even come close to the iPhone revenue.

[Craig Seeman]"Using your reasoning Apple would only make iPhones since even iPads don't even come close to the iPhone revenue."

No, I said Apple is now working and growing in personal services and appliances. The iPad conceptually is the perfect example of this. All the required expansion you mentioned earlier has to materialize in offerings of said appliances/services. That is what makes sense in my reasoning. On the other hand, I'm not disputing "professional" use, this is not the gist of what I said. Merely that Apple has already positioned itself as a prime mobile company of which selling desktops is fast shrinking business and couldn't possibly account for anything more than a little more time before it dies in the future. Of course, there's plenty of high businesses married to Apple already and the majority of them don't need desktops in any shape or form. Hope this clarifies.

[Christian Schumacher]"selling desktops is fast shrinking business and couldn't possibly account for anything more than a little more time before it dies in the future."

Yet Apple seems to be shrinking a lot less than the rest of the PC market. How far in the future do we go?
There's still a wide technology gap. It's narrowing but it has a ways to go.

And it seems each time the gap shrinks in one area, there' something pushing hard in the opposite direction. For example HEVC (H.265) pushes both CPU and GPU demands on encoding many fold higher. When that hits as a delivery need, the current MBPr or top iMac might feel like a slug compared to a MacPro which may allow you to at least upgrade the GPU as the demands increase.

Consider the recent release of several new GPUs for the Mac which currently only serve the MacPro market.The nVidia GeForce GTX 680 or the AMD Radeon 7950 are examples. Apple opened those doors with OSX 10.8.3. That doesn't sound like a company about to consolidate its desktop lineup and certainly not dump 16x PCIe slots.

[Craig Seeman]"Yet Apple seems to be shrinking a lot less than the rest of the PC market"

That's because they're prioritizing a successful mobile ecosystem. All their recent growth in "computers"came from MacBooksPros and MacBookAirs, and that's shooting up to the moon for the last ten years. They are offering excellent products there indeed, with different options and prices for a variety of needs. Come to read this thread on the Cow and go up to see a screen grab I posted before. Right into the iCloud's ecosystem images of their marketing we can see how they portray the "Mac" -an Air! No Mini, no iMac. No desktops. That's where they're going. Not in 2013 or 2014, but it's near.

[Craig Seeman]"the current MBPr or top iMac might feel like a slug compared to a MacPro which may allow you to at least upgrade the GPU as the demands increase."

Yes, that's why I said also that they will release a desktop product. Wait until technology cathes up and we're going to get a laptop only line soon.

[Craig Seeman]"Consider the recent release of several new GPUs for the Mac which currently only serve the MacPro market."

I wouldn't bet the farm yet. Both nvidia based cards released are PCIE 2.0 which means they were meant for the current MacPro. Since Apple in fact has had the MacPro "updated"in 2012, what's the surprise here really?

[Christian Schumacher]" All their recent growth in "computers"came from MacBooksPros and MacBookAirs, "

The only reason why the iMac isn't amongst that crop was because Apple couldn't make them fast enough as per Cook's comments during Apple's report. iMacs do sell well as all in ones go.

[Christian Schumacher]"No desktops. That's where they're going. Not in 2013 or 2014, but it's near."[Christian Schumacher]"Wait until technology cathes up and we're going to get a laptop only line soon."

It can't happen until there's 100Gbit Thunderbolt. There's still demand for higher powered GPUs and related high bandwidth cards. I'm not sure what you consider soon but we're still a few years away. As I've said before one people think the gap starts to close something spreads it back out again. You have to consider the kind of computer that'll be needed for HEVC encoding in real time. If 4K spreads that's going to further expand on number crunching. I seriously doubt that the CPU/GPU increase in laptops will be up to that kind of sustained work in two years.

[Christian Schumacher]" Both nvidia based cards released are PCIE 2.0 "

The AMD Sapphire Radeon 7950 is PCIe3 on Windows only at the moment. That may change when there's a MacPro that supports it.

The nVidia GeForce 680 also has a Windows version that PCIe3 so that can also change once there's a MacPro that can support it.

[Craig Seeman]"The only reason why the iMac isn't amongst that crop was because Apple couldn't make them fast enough as per Cook's comments during Apple's report. iMacs do sell well as all in ones go."

I wasn't talking specifically about this report. Apple Desktops are shrinking, and they will continue to do so. All of this obsolescence was carefully planned. This is the trend that I'm talking about, and if you think that iMacs Pros or Macmini Pros are coming to change this picture, you might want to reconsider it. They could come in the form of gorgeous pieces of gear, sure! Eventually they could become desktop flagships for a little while, and this could be good for Apple Pro Apps too. But how long is it going to last? Or how successful is it going to be? You seem to imply that desktops do have the potential to expand Apple's business, but I just can't see that. According to Apple's strategies they simply won't need them anymore. In other words, even if they allow us to use -God forbid- PCI cards, that thing will not last long enough to have, let's say, three revisions. It's a 2014 model and later on one in 2015. Then what? Finito. It's just one big transitional phase for all the power users that still are on board. Some will stay on the mobiles, others will leave. That's the story of Apple becoming a very distinct tighten niche.

Well, we've already seen the response when Apple neglects even the narrowest percentage of it's Mac lineup [the MacPro].

Apple doesn't break down sales of Macs in their earnings reports, but in the quarter ending in January- Apple reported sales of 4.1 million Macs, which was down from 5.2 million the year before. Apple made a point of justifying this discrepancy by stating that because the iMac wasn't available in any real quantities until January, they figure they lost out on 700,000 sales.

That means that we know that aprox 20% or 1 out of every 5 Macs sold is an iMac. When you count in MacMinis and Mac pro's, that number is probably at least 25%. 25% of Mac buyers are consciously choosing a desktop option. And those people aren't all doing it for the same reason.

This new machine has been said to be for the MacPro crowd, that irreconcilable with the needs of most desktop users who aren't looking for the extra power or expandability that a MacPro provides as it's key selling features.

[Marcus Moore]"Well, we've already seen the response when Apple neglects even the narrowest percentage of it's Mac lineup [the MacPro]"

Do you expect the same if the Macmini goes the way of the dodo? REALLY? Or iMac for that matter? If they offer a 4K display along with a 2,000 dollar computer everybody will be "happy"and that's it! Don't have the money? Buy an Air, you'll be fine with that. You can even connect to the new panel when you grow up.

A bit of a problem with the Apple desktop is that both we here and people in Apple know that in a very near future that percentage will drop to 20, then 15, 10, you get the idea...If they manage to offer a powerful yet simple desktop computer they might outlive its demise and make a quick buck out of their audience. The real money is in the consumer market anyway, so throw them a bone and they'll shut up.

Even in the "content consumer" market there are tablet gammers and there are the hardcore desktop gamers who demand crazy powerful GPUs with high frame rate 3D model rendering. Until the technology gets there, across the board, ... it hasn't.

Even in the "content consumer" market there are tablet gammers and there are the hardcore desktop gamers who demand crazy powerful GPUs with high frame rate 3D model rendering. Until the technology gets there, across the board, ... it hasn't."

That's a good defensive point there, but I'm afraid that Apple may be in a position where they have to jump the shark a bit, and that could mean they would become an even tighter niche company than in the past. I guess they may have jumped that sharkie alreay, but what do I know...

[Christian Schumacher]"Do you expect the same if the Macmini goes the way of the dodo? REALLY? Or iMac for that matter? If they offer a 4K display along with a 2,000 dollar computer everybody will be "happy"and that's it! Don't have the money? Buy an Air, you'll be fine with that. You can even connect to the new panel when you grow up."

It seems like whatever Apple does there's always a group for which it was the most important thing in the universe. But I think MacMinis have proven to be a popular machine, whether it's for small business server use, or for people looking for the cheapest "entry" Mac. And if Apple unceremoniously dropped the iMac? i ABSOLUTELY believe there would be an uproar. 20% of people clearly want an iMac. Apple doesn't just toss that away.

[Christian Schumacher]"A bit of a problem with the Apple desktop is that both we here and people in Apple know that in a very near future that percentage will drop to 20, then 15, 10, you get the idea...If they manage to offer a powerful yet simple desktop computer they might outlive its demise and make a quick buck out of their audience. The real money is in the consumer market anyway, so throw them a bone and they'll shut up."

I think there is a bottom to that number [who knows what that is]. Laptops have scooped up more users as they've become powerful enough for more users. Just like how less people now need a MacPro than before- an iMac is enough for a majority of desktop users.

In the near term, I doubt we'll see any significant changes in the lineup.

I didn't see that applying to MacPros one way or the other as they don't make a dent in the bottom line. IOW, it's meaningless to all but a niche group, and therefore doesn't fall into the amazing new products category.

I've certainly mentioned this. Whatever the time frame, the new MacPro will likely be a "leader" if it includes Xeon Thunderbolt support. I've also mentioned the challenge around the GPUs which, to date, have all been socketed on the motherboard and used by Thunderbolt.

My guess is the next MacPro may have a socketed GPU as well as 16x slot(s) for additional GPUs. All this probably requires working very closely with Intel and this is where the challenges and delays may be. I'd also note that Intel said they're winding down their motherboard business. That may mean Apple is doing a lot of the motherboard design work for this.

Surely Apple is now an iGadget company, and almost not a computer maker at all. Their huge profits are made by iPhones, and the huge drop in their share price is based on Samsung now beating them in sales. Having set themselves on this course, they have to keep introducing new sorts of iToys, otherwise investors will take their cash elsewhere - an iPhone X just won't cut it. I'm still betting on 2015 as a crunch point - and also holding on to my ARM shares.

With their cash mountain they could have just kept churning out new model MacPros every few months if they'd wanted to. They are, after all, just PCs running a different operating system. Apple don't want to make PCs any more, so they aren't, apart from the high margin pretty toys that don't expand without new technology which isn't - and may never be - well supported in the industry outside Apple. Just like Firewire 800 was(n't).

If I was a psychology student, I'd ask the Cow for a complete listing of this forum over the past two years - it's been amazing watching the hopes, fears and aspirations, which seem to have really reached a close now, as most seem to be migrating to Premiere Pro. Probably, very quietly, they're picking the PC based version, since they can have new expandable gear whenever they wish.

Bernard Newnhamit's been amazing watching the hopes, fears and aspirations, which seem to have really reached a close now, as most seem to be migrating to Premiere Pro. Probably, very quietly, they're picking the PC based version, since they can have new expandable gear whenever they wish.

This new Premiere Pro certainly could make things interesting if the "really great" Mac Pro fails to impress. Because if this thing lives up to the hype there will be- for the first time- a real, bona fide, honest-to-goodness FCP7 equivalent on the PC platform.

An HP Z-series or something similar with the next Premiere Pro loaded on it will be a force to be reckoned with- especially now that multiple GPUs can be utilized for encoding...

______________________________________________
"Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."

WWDC in June would be the logical time to release a MP replacement. Cook is a numbers guys though. There could either be a supply chain issue or they've run the numbers and decided the potential sales are too soft. It could also be that they've had greater success than expected in selling iMacs into the target pro market and are rethinking the need for a new MP.

On the other hand if a more expensive higher margin computer cannibalizes a lower cost lower margin computer, you'd think they'd be motivated to get it out the door if possible.

Granted if the supply chain can't get it out fast enough, they'd end up losing sales on both as people enter a holding pattern waiting for delivery.

My wild guess is that they're waiting on Intel for chip yields.

I'd also note the number of MacPro GPUs coming to market recently given the OS now supports them. Consider the business ramifications to Apple by opening this up in the OS. I actually don't have an answer since there's several ways to look at this.

Newer GPUs allows us to keep our older MacPros alive a bit longer... which actually slows sales for Apple. on the other hand finally having multiple GPU options would bode well for the new MacPro since limited GPU options was, for many, its Achilles heal. From the GPU maker perspective, why make a GPU for an aging computer that, at best, would result in very low volume sales, given not many were sold to begin with? My hunch is that these GPU makers are banking on sales for the new MacPro.

Wait. So we're talking about reasons for the delay of a product that we haven't been given any time frame on other than "later in 2013"?

Oliver, a ven diagram will reveal a large overlap between the sphere's of "later in 2013" and "in the fall and all across 2014". In fact, I think you'll find the first circle exists ENTIRELY in side the second.

Apple's salvation is always looking out at aging categories and re-imagining and re-inventing them - based on where peripheral enabling technologies are already going.

Remember Microsoft missing the whole "on-line" idea for years in favor of just selling boxes full of ever incrementally improved processors and only making large shifts when it was impossible not to do so?

Somebody blazes the trails, others follow. When you've blazed it, you can settle down and run the local store. Or you can keep moving forward and look for the next trail to blaze. I ferverntly hope that's still Apple's culture. If not, they'll just become another competitor like all the others. And that would be sad.

In our field, the use and manipulation of graphics and video aren't exactly diminishing as a human practices. They're just moving away from being a niche practice toward being a pretty general one.

I for one hope Apple really is "re-inventing" what a modern powerful computing box should be. I hope it's less a "box" and more a "system" with scalable modules.

We'll see.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Bill Davis]"Remember Microsoft missing the whole "on-line" idea for years in favor of just selling boxes full of ever incrementally improved processors and only making large shifts when it was impossible not to do so?"

Microsoft never sold "boxes". They've always made their money by licensing technology and selling services.

[Bill Davis]"In our field, the use and manipulation of graphics and video aren't exactly diminishing as a human practices. They're just moving away from being a niche practice toward being a pretty general one.

I for one hope Apple really is "re-inventing" what a modern powerful computing box should be. I hope it's less a "box" and more a "system" with scalable modules."

[Bill Davis]"Remember Microsoft missing the whole "on-line" idea for years in favor of just selling boxes full of ever incrementally improved processors and only making large shifts when it was impossible not to do so?"

Huh? Microsoft didn't sell branded desktop computers. Other hardware does include Xbox (very successful) and now Surface (also very nice).

OK, I should have said selling "into" boxes rather than selling the boxes themselves. And thinking back, that's not really accurate at all. MS didn't actually have to activelly "sell" anything. Their product and their profit stream was woven into the fabric of every possible PC computer purchase

I remember quite distinctly accompanying a friend to buy a PC in the late 1980s - and since he was a serious techie who wanted to run BSD Linux - he first asked how much the computer would cost with MS-DOS installed - answer was $X,XXX. Then he asked how much it would cost without MS-DOS installed - the answer was $X,XXX.

That's how MS came to dominate computing. You literally could NOT buy a non-Mac PC without paying the license for that OS. The box and the OS were essentially fused PRIOR to the point of purchase.

So to say Microsoft didn't "sell" hardware, while technically accurate, misrepresents the situation on the ground. You bought a non-Mac personal computer, you paid Redmond. Period.

Inseparable, really.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Bill Davis]"That's how MS came to dominate computing. You literally could NOT buy a non-Mac PC without paying the license for that OS. The box and the OS were essentially fused PRIOR to the point of purchase."

Not true at all. You could always build or by computers without MS-DOS installed. Some vendors sold generic machines without an OS, some didn't. Also, remember that there were other choices outside of
Apple or Microsoft (Commodore, IBM). I myslef was a huge fan of Amiga before I started using Windows. Finally, Microsoft didn't build the dominance of Windows PCs in the consumer market, Compaq, Tandy, and thousands of systems integrators did that.

[Shawn Miller]" I myslef was a huge fan of Amiga before I started using Windows."

The first home computer I had was am Amstraad running yet a different OS. I believe it was called Geo or something like that, which was a GUI shell on top of DOS. Then there was CPM, the Digital Research DOS and later IBM's OS2 and Warp. Let's also throw another inconvenient fact out there. For a while (maybe still), Microsoft was the largest vendor for third-party Mac software, mainly because of Office.

But Bill's point about Apple being disruptively innovative is definitely true. Of course "disruptive" and "professional" user are often contradictory - especially when the gear you rely on is being disrupted.

[Oliver Peters]"The first home computer I had was am Amstraad running yet a different OS. I believe it was called Geo or something like that, which was a GUI shell on top of DOS. Then there was CPM, the Digital Research DOS and later IBM's OS2 and Warp. Let's also throw another inconvenient fact out there. For a while (maybe still), Microsoft was the largest vendor for third-party Mac software, mainly because of Office."

I had a couple OS/2 machines. They were cool. Preemptive multitasking, an object-oriented desktop metaphor, and Windows API compatibility. Microsoft and IBM collaborated on early versions, and IBM ultimately marketed OS/2 as "A better Windows than Windows."

But Bill is correct that a lot of people paid for MS-DOS whether they wanted it or not, and whether it was installed or not. From Wikipedia [link]:

Prior to 1995, Microsoft licensed MS-DOS (and Windows) to computer manufacturers under three types of agreement: per-processor (a fee for each system the company sold), per-system (a fee for each system of a particular model), or per-copy (a fee for each copy of MS-DOS installed). The largest manufacturers used the per-processor arrangement, which had the lowest fee. This arrangement made it expensive for the large manufacturers to migrate to any other operating system, such as DR DOS. In 1991, the U.S. government Federal Trade Commission began investigating Microsoft's licensing procedures, resulting in a 1994 settlement agreement limiting Microsoft to per-copy licensing.

[Walter Soyka]"
But Bill is correct that a lot of people paid for MS-DOS whether they wanted it or not,"

The bottom line is that MS and Apple operated from essentially the same approach. MS said to the manufacturers that if you wanted DOS or Windows you had to set up a bundling/licensing arrangement. Apple told consumers that if you wanted Mac OS, you had to buy Apple hardware (or licensed clones for awhile). Fundamentally the two flip sides of the same coin.

[Oliver Peters]"The bottom line is that MS and Apple operated from essentially the same approach. MS said to the manufacturers that if you wanted DOS or Windows you had to set up a bundling/licensing arrangement. Apple told consumers that if you wanted Mac OS, you had to buy Apple hardware (or licensed clones for awhile). Fundamentally the two flip sides of the same coin."

Apple has been able to do a lot of stuff that would have gotten Microsoft in a lot of trouble ten or fifteen years ago, haven't they?

One critical difference is Apple's control over hardware. Microsoft never had that. It's easy to forget now, but Windows once ran on Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC in addition to x86.

But I'll get back to Bill's original quote:

[Bill Davis]"Remember Microsoft missing the whole "on-line" idea for years in favor of just selling boxes full of ever incrementally improved processors and only making large shifts when it was impossible not to do so? Somebody blazes the trails, others follow. When you've blazed it, you can settle down and run the local store. Or you can keep moving forward and look for the next trail to blaze."

[Oliver Peters]"The bottom line is that MS and Apple operated from essentially the same approach. MS said to the manufacturers that if you wanted DOS or Windows you had to set up a bundling/licensing arrangement. Apple told consumers that if you wanted Mac OS, you had to buy Apple hardware (or licensed clones for awhile). Fundamentally the two flip sides of the same coin."

I don't think so.

It's one thing for ONE competitive manufacturer to sell a "bundled solution" forcing each customer to decide whether or not they wish to buy in to their entire ecosystem.

It's quite another to essentially tell ALL hardware manufacturers - across an entire industry - that the only way you'll sell them a popular OS is if they license it for every box they sell regardless of whether or not the customer want's it installed.

I think those are VERY different business approaches.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

Thanks for your email. Our Pro customers like you are really important to us. Although we didn’t have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro at today’s event, don’t worry as we’re working on something really great for later next year. We also updated the current model today.

We’ve been continuing to update Final Cut Pro X with revolutionary pro features like industry leading multi-cam support and we just updated Aperture with incredible new image adjustment features.

We also announced a MacBook Pro with a Retina Display that is a great solution for many pros.

I know about that mail. But in this conference call with investors he talked about amazing new hardware and software in the fall of 2013 and in 2014. So not only in 2014.
This, combined with the mail you refer too, makes me guess that a new Mac Pro in 2013 is still very much in the works.

I've heard September for new Mac Pro. I think it's driven by Intel's chip delivery. And note that literally Cook said in his email : "later next year." If it comes before September, we'll all be happier.

I think people need to look at this statement from Tim in it's context.

Apple has been taking it in the shorts from people throwing out wild, unsubstantiated rumours. And when those rumours DON'T come to pass, it's seen as a "delay" or "failure" by Apple. Cook has been more aggressive than Jobs about trying to kill some of this stuff quickly, but obviously he can't answer every idiotic rumour that comes along.

All you have to do is look at Apple news over the last month to see tons of "people in the know" reports by bloggers saying there's going to be new iPhone or iPads launched this spring or perhaps at WWDC. I think Tim Cook's statement is a direct stab at those rumours, "No new iPhones iPad until the fall, jackasses!"

Of course, it will never be clear enough for some people. I remember reading an article from a guy who came away disappointed that there wasn't a new product announcement at the SHAREHOLDER'S MEETING!

Of course WWDC would be a great time to announce the new MacPro. But as I've said before, it's all about the guts. If the MacPro is still going to tie itself to Xeons, then Intel's roadmap says FALL. So it will be Fall.

If they have something else up their sleeve, then anything can happen.

But Apple isn't going to wait for the next-gen TB. Why? Cause they've already had to wait 2 years for Thunderbolt I/O to make it to the Xeon processors. Who knows how long it will be before the next version would appear on the server-class chips.

If the new MacPro is a big refresh for the device, then I think we can reasonably expect the refresh cycle to go back to something more in line with the rest of the Macs. So if this year's MacPro ships with 10Gbps, then so be it. And if they can offer 20Gbps next year, then they will.

I recommended that a friend of my buy an iMac. and if when the MacPro gets released, he finds it compelling enough an improvement to warrant it, then his iMac will still be current generation and he can probably recapture a lot of it's value.